I'm a Data Scientist myself, but I think this tag is probably worthless. Almost all 150,000 R questions, all MATLAB, Octave, and probably 50% of Python and Excel questions would qualify as being data science.

It's used so rarely and so inconsistently I don't think it provides any value as a filter.

It may lead to OP's tagging a question in what they think is an appropriate way, while really missing the tags that would get their question read by the appropriate communities.

If a question is about data science in a sense that's abstracted from any particular language or code, then it's a Cross Validated or Data Science SE question more than a Stack Overflow question.

@TylerH Agreed; I just meant that the subject exists is not a sufficient criterion for an endeavor to be a science. Side note: Ever notice that any field which has science in the name isn't a science?
– jpaughDec 4 '16 at 5:51

1 Answer
1

I agree; though data science was originally synonymous with computer science, the subject of data science itself (like computer science) is an incredibly broad one: "extracting knowledge or insights from data" per the tag's own description. Like the subject of computer science, I think real questions on data science (rather than just questions where the tag is thrown on) are likely too high level, broad, or possibly opinion-based for this site.

I would say burninate. Glancing at the first page of questions tagged with it, its existence doesn't seem to improve the value or searchability of any of the ones I looked at.